Nationwide PPI - Rejected by Nationwide and FOS - cant be right

[quasar911]

I am so angry that FoS have listened to what Natiowide have said about timescales and i cannot claim !!

 

There must be a way to do so, as i NEVER need any form of PPI.

 

the reply from FOS was :

 

i feel the below i totally unfair as u did not know i had ppi on the card until i found an old statement last year.

also nationwide did not tell me of any time-scales-limits , i feel they have used dirty tricks.

 

there must be a way for me to make a claim as i am disgusted they have basically said "tough"

 

 

Dear Mr xxxxxxx

 

Thank you for your email dated 10 February 2016. I have attempted to contact you on numerous occasions to discuss the complaint with you, however I have been unsuccessful.

 

I apologise that you feel this way, however under the dispute resolution rules set out by the Financial Conduct Authority, businesses are entitled to not consent to us looking at a complaint on six and three and as a service we have to consider this before we can proceed to look at the merits. In your case Nationwide has not consented into us looking into your complaint, therefore we have to look at whether it’s been more than six years since the PPI policy was sold and more than three years since the you became aware (or ought reasonably to have become aware) that you had cause to complain. We are an impartial service and have consider evidence provided by both you and the business in order to reach a fair outcome.

 

Our general approach is that statements clearing setting out PPI ought reasonably to have made the consumer aware that PPI was added to their account. In your case, your monthly statements would have shown that you were paying for insurance. Whilst I understand you may not have checked every single statement, it would have been clear from the statement that you were paying some sort of insurance which would have been enough to give you cause to question what it was you were paying and complain.

 

I appreciate that you have told us that you were not aware that there was a timescale to make a complaint and Nationwide never informed you of this, however they are not required to do so. I have to consider that it is reasonable to assume that you should reasonably have known you had cause to complain more than three years before you did – so unfortunately your complaint falls outside the three-year time scale as well and I remain of the view that the complaint could have been referred to us within time.

 

If there’s anything else that you think we need to consider that relates specifically to reasons why your complaint was made outside of these timescales, please let us know within 21 days.

We’ll then look at things again taking into account what you send us - but unless you have any new information it is unlikely that our view will change. Should you request for an ombudsman to make a decision on your complaint, the ombudsman will not be considering your complaint, but rather whether we can look into the complaint any further.

 

I am sorry that we were not able to help you more on this occasion.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Mena Salih

Financial Ombudsman Service

0203 069 6556

[havinastella]

Simple, Issue Court proceedings!

[dx100uk]

so nationwide wrote and informed you more than 3yrs ago that there was PPI there to reclaim..??

 

 

as that's the only way the 3yrs rule can be applied.

[quasar911]

Hello,

 

No , Nationwide Never wrote to me saying there was PPI to claim,

 

As there was no mention of this during my communication of complaint to them.

 

If i go the route of court processdings, shall i notify nationwide i will do this ?

 

""more than three years since the you became aware (or ought reasonably to have become aware) that you had cause to complain."

 

No i was not aware - this is probably a dirty trick of them saying i should be,

 

I became aware, and then i complained to them ! as i wad clearing out loft and found a couple of old statements.

[dx100uk]

its diff to advise properly without seeing the letters.

but

as far as I am aware.

 

unless they have done as the attachment

they cant invoke the 3 yrs rule?

[quasar911]

I shall have a read through that = thank you

 

would you like me to upload letters ?

[dx100uk]

yes please follow the upload

 

 

pop them all in ONE word doc and save that as a PDF

 

 

I see one of mine didn't work

try now

[mightymouse_69]

so nationwide wrote and informed you more than 3yrs ago that there was PPI there to reclaim..??

 

 

as that's the only way the 3yrs rule can be applied.

 

Incorrect.

 

Disp 2.8.2 says that a complaint cannot be considered by the Ombudsman if it is brought more than six years after the event complained about or more than...:

 

"three years from the date on which the complainant became aware (or ought reasonably to have become aware) that he had cause for complaint"

 

Depending on what the complaint is, PPI being shown clearly in statements would be enough to trigger this rule.

[dx100uk]

usual helpful post MM..not..

cant see nationwide have issued a CCL

so the 3 yrs does not apply...

[mightymouse_69]

usual helpful post MM..not..

cant see nationwide have issued a CCL

so the 3 yrs does not apply...

 

Why isn't it helpful? You said something which wasn't correct - so I corrected it.

 

The business doesn't have to send out any special letter to start the time bar clock. So long as their is evidence that the consumer ought to have known there was a reason to complain, then the clock starts running.

 

If Mr X complains that he had no idea he had PPI, and the business presents 10 years worth of statements all clearly showing PPI... then the time bar is satisfied. It is just a matter as to whether the business will be willing to waive this and allow the FOS to continue with their investigation.

 

Quasar911 needs to be aware of this, because it might be an issue which crops up if he issues proceedings against Nationwide.

[dx100uk]

then why have 90% of past PPI reclaims here not failed

as most were made outside of 6yrs from the PPI reclaimed...

 

 

there is no rule that says PPI can become time barred.

 

 

the 3yrs rule

only kicks in if a CCL has been issued as the docs i posted clearly state

and the FCA has not issued any edict redacting that rule.

 

 

dx

[mightymouse_69]

then why have 90% of past PPI reclaims here not failed

as most were made outside of 6yrs from the PPI reclaimed...

 

Do you have figures on the percentages of complaints that FOS consider they cannot deal with?

 

Part of the answer to your question is: "The ADR Directive". It used to be that FOS would take on all complaints unless the business objected due to time barring. Now it's the opposite. The FOS has to be sure that the business consents to them looking into a complaint which may have been referred after the 6/3 years.

 

the 3yrs rule

only kicks in if a CCL has been issued as the docs i posted clearly state

and the FCA has not issued any edict redacting that rule.

dx

 

I think you need to read the documents a little more carefully. A few pages in, it says:

 

"Whether and when a customer becomes aware (or ought reasonably to have become aware) that they had cause for complaint for the purpose of our time limit rules is a matter of fact that will depend on the individual circumstances of each case. A customer’s previous experience of the PPI policy and dealings with the firm about it may impact on the extent to which the customer may be aware (or ought reasonably to have been aware) that they had cause for complaint."

 

and

 

Assuming that the three-year time period has not already begun, receiving a PPI CCL will be an important factor to consider in determining whether a customer has sufficient awareness to trigger the start of the three-year time limit.

 

So a CCL is something which can trigger the three years - but it isn't the only thing (hence the statement here showing that the three years could have begun before a CCL is sent).

 

I'd also, again, point out the actual rules. Dis 2.8.2 - I posted the text above. It says nothing about CCLs there - because they are a device used for PPI to trigger a rule which has many other potential triggers.

[dx100uk]

the op was unaware he had ppi until of recent

needs to prove that.

 

 

time limits should not apply at all in such cases

 

 

the consumer only became aware of the cause of complaint within the last three years and there were no reasonable grounds by which the consumer ought to have been aware of the cause before this. Remember the rules are about when the consumer became aware (or ought to have become aware) .

[Hortz]

It's been a while since I posted on this forum, but as a former compliance officer I can confirm that Mighty Mouse is right.

 

The document posted by DX was an FCA consultation paper. This is effectively where the FCA sets out a proposed approach to a certain matter and invites comments. The proposals are not rules, merely suggestions which they are inviting feedback on. This dated back to 2009.

 

The FCA rules on timebarring state the following (as Mighty Mouse has stated, this is in the FCA handbook of rules and guidance under DISP 2.8.2 and therefore DOES have the status of a rule:

 

R09/07/2015

The Ombudsman cannot consider a complaint if the complainant refers it to the Financial Ombudsman Service:

 

(1) more than six months after the date on which the respondent sent the complainant its final response or redress determination or summary resolution communication; or

(2) more than:

(a) six years after the event complained of; or (if later)

(b) three years from the date on which the complainant became aware (or ought reasonably to have become aware) that he had cause for complaint;

 

In this case I am assuming (OP correct me if I am wrong) that the policy commenced more than 6 years ago and hence the first part of this is satisfied, i.e. the sale is over 6 years old. It therefore comes down to the second part - should the OP have reasonably been aware over 3 years ago that there were grounds for complaint

 

Firstly, there is not and never has been any absolute rule that the lender has to send out a CCL to start the three year clock running. This is simply the most common route for doing so, since the regulator accepts that receipt of such a letter is unarguably confirmation that the customer ought to have been reasonably aware. However, if the lender can argue that other circumstances prove reasonable awareness then they can have a timebar applied without having issued a CCL. It all hinges on the circumstances of the individual case.

 

In this instance the specific complaint was that the OP had not requested PPI. The OP stated "I did not know i had ppi on the card until i found an old statement last year". Their position is that the OP obviously received that statement more than 3 years ago (as evidenced by the date of the statement) and the PPI entry shows clearly on it. Therefore, the OP ought reasonably to have been aware at the time of receiving it that the PPI had been added and (if the claim that the OP did not ask for it is correct) that there were grounds for complaint. Therefore, the OP should have done so at the time.

 

I appreciate that this may be unpalatable to some, but those are the rules and that is how FOS are looking at it. Unless the OP can provide a convincing rebuttal then they are unlikely to change that view ("I didn't read the statement" is unlikely to be accepted as the rule is about whether you ought reasonably to have been aware, FOS considers it reasonable that people would read their credit card statements).

[dx100uk]

surely there is a big diff between 'having' received a statement, reading and understanding its contentsit 'to whatever' extent

and the fact that they realised that it had PPI charged on it, and were aware that PPI was reclaimable?

 

 

dx

[Hortz]

surely there is a big diff between 'having' received a statement, reading and understanding its contentsit 'to whatever' extent

and the fact that they realised that it had PPI charged on it, and were aware that PPI was reclaimable?

 

 

dx

 

I think you're probably over complicating things.

What it comes down to is when the OP received those statements with credit card protection or whatever charged on it, they would have realised then that they were paying for something (and, assuming memory serves the OP correctly) that it was something they hadn't asked for.

 

 

Whether it is PPI or not is somewhat academic.

On realising you were paying for something you hadn't asked for, the logical course of action would be to query/complain there and then rather than waiting several years.

 

 

The OP is clearly capable of understanding and querying the payment as evidenced by the OP doing so years down the line.

The FOS response is basically "you should have raised it at the time".

 

The OP can ask for an Ombudsman to consider the matter as suggested in the response letter.

However, it is only a minority of cases where they would overturn an adjudicator's decision

so it's probably best not to expect too much.

 

I know someone mentioned issuing court proceedings and this is something which should only be contemplated if the OP can afford to pay costs.

 

 

Banks responses to this are unpredictable, sometimes they can't be bothered with the hassle and will just pay out,

sometimes they will dig their heels in and throw the expensive lawyers at it. It would not be wise to assume the first scenario.

[quasar911]

Hello All,

 

Back on this, i know it has been some time, but is it worth bringing it all up again and make a fresh complaint, or is it all dead and buried and nothing i can do.

[dx100uk]

No harm in trying

[mightymouse_69]

Hello All,

 

Back on this, i know it has been some time, but is it worth bringing it all up again and make a fresh complaint, or is it all dead and buried and nothing i can do.

 

It'll be a waste of time. They'll just write back and refer you back to the previous letter.

[quasar911]

Coming Back to this, someone told me if i wrote to the CEO of nationwide, they may decide to pay out, as i thought it VERY unfair they gave me a time limit, when i only found out i had ppi when i first wrote to them

[dx100uk]

IMHO correct.

 

 

dx